History:
L. 1970, ch. 132, § 23; L. 1985, ch. 115, § 32; L. 1986, ch. 137, § 6; L. 1987, ch. 121, § 5; Repealed, L. 1994, ch. 301, § 86; July 1, 1995.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Applied; judge in responding state without jurisdiction to condition disbursement of payments on visitation rights. Patterson v. Patterson, 2 Kan. App. 2d 447, 448, 581 P.2d 824.
2. Cited; relationship between URESA child support order and prior divorce decree child support award examined. Wornkey v. Wornkey, 12 Kan. App. 2d 506, 511, 749 P.2d 1045 (1988).
3. Facts constituting unenforceable order, judgment, or decree in action brought on behalf of foreign country examined. Federal Republic of Germany v. Nelsen, 247 Kan. 461, 799 P.2d 1038 (1990).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1978–1990 · leading case: Wornkey v. Wornkey, 749 P.2d 1045 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988).
Wornkey v. Wornkey, 749 P.2d 1045 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “” Except in the limited situations noted herein, the responding court (here, the Geary County District Court) may make its own determination as to the proper amount of support and enter an order awarding the obligee an award less than, greater than, or equal to a prior support…”
Patterson v. Patterson, 581 P.2d 824 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978). “703; K.S.A. 23-473. We conclude that the trial court’s order that payment of child support be withheld unless visitation rights are granted by the plaintiff was beyond its jurisdiction.”
Fed. Repub. of Germany ex rel. Deinlein v. Nelsen, 799 P.2d 1038 (Kan. 1990). “” K.S.A. 23-473 provides in part: “If the responding court finds a duty of support it may order the obligor to furnish support or reimbursement therefor and subject the property of the obligor to the order.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.